D&D General Of Consent, Session 0 and Hard Decisions.

[EzekielRaiden]

@Thomas Shey, see the moralizing being pushed back against here? We are in some form or another awful people with awful attitudes if we 1) don't agree and 2) don't accommodate.

@EzekielRaiden how about you accommodate me but not making me into some awful person?

Okay. I'm game for that.

How often do you think safety tools are actually abused by someone acting in bad faith?

Do you think the presence of safety tools has any effect on someone electing to begin participating in bad faith?

Why is it that maximal DM latitude, which can also be horrendously abused (far worse than safety tools!) is acceptable, but safety tools (which are exceedingly rarely actually abused) are not acceptable?

 

[FrogReaver]

I don't see how there can be any argument that at least SOME accommodation is always the correct thing to do--so long as the people participating are participating in good faith.

What I actually just said in the post you quoted that it was a weak point because it didn't say anything about people participating in good faith...

 

[MGibster]

Even if that one person is traumatised by X, and the others are merely okay with it? Even if they're your friend and this is one of the main times you socialise with them?

The world doesn't revolve around that person's pain. The needs of that one person doesn't take priority over the needs and wants of everyone else. Someone who has suffered a trauma to the point where they have social anxiety problems needs to figure out the best way to tackle those problems. The best way might be stepping away from a game they know they'll have a problem with.

Because people have been equating avoiding traumatic triggers with personal preferences. They are equating "I cannot envision spiders without having anxiety" to "I must play a wizard and no one else can."

Probably in part because the word triggering has been overly used these past few years. It used to be when someone said something triggered them I knew it meant an anxiety attack. These days I'm not sure if they mean an anxiety attack or it's simply something they don't like.

Like I have quite plainly said that there is content/subject matter I will walk away from, no questions asked. Does that make me a 'wuss'?

Nope. I'm sure there's content I'd walk away from, but given that I'm dead inside, it'd probably have to be pretty serious.

 

[Scribe]

I think the question boils down to this: which is more important, the activity you are doing or the people you are doing them with? Your response indicates the activity is more important and in a conflict between doing something you want to do and spending time with someone you consider a friend, the former will win out over the latter.

And frankly speaking, that's sad.

No, thats just your intentional misreading of the situation.

I'm saying that I would choose to take the initiative to not engage with content that I dont want to engage with, rather than force others to do as I wish.

I am not forcing, excluding, or choosing an activity, over an individual in any way. I am saying, have said, clearly, that I would make the choice for myself.

If anyone wants to point out where I said otherwise, feel free and I'll apologize and amend my statement.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Like I have quite plainly said that there is content/subject matter I will walk away from, no questions asked. Does that make me a 'wuss'?

No. But the attitude you expressed, as I understood it, was as follows:

"We have 30 people attending this family gathering. Because all of them could potentially have crippling trauma, we will not accommodate any of them for any reason. If that ruins the event for them, they had better learn to like it, or completely skip out on meeting with family and participating in the overall social group."

I summarized that, unkindly because I find this attitude quite offensive, as "who cares, you'd better buckle up and get over your wussy nonsense if you want to do anything in any group ever."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

The world doesn't revolve around that person's pain. The needs of that one person doesn't take priority over the needs and wants of everyone else. Someone who has suffered a trauma to the point where they have social anxiety problems needs to figure out the best way to tackle those problems. The best way might be stepping away from a game they know they'll have a problem with.

Ah, the wonderful "since you have trauma, keep it to yourself and never participate in society" response.

 

[Scribe]

"We have 30 people attending this family gathering. Because all of them could potentially have crippling trauma, we will not accommodate any of them for any reason. If that ruins the event for them, they had better learn to like it, or completely skip out on meeting with family and participating in the overall social group."

I summarized that, unkindly because I find this attitude quite offensive, as "who cares, you'd better buckle up and get over your wussy nonsense if you want to do anything in any group ever."

Well, you are flat out wrong in your summary and assessment, so there's that.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

No, thats just your intentional misreading of the situation.

I'm saying that I would choose to take the initiative to not engage with content that I dont want to engage with, rather than force others to do as I wish.

I am not forcing, excluding, or choosing an activity, over an individual in any way. I am saying, have said, clearly, that I would make the choice for myself.

If anyone wants to point out where I said otherwise, feel free and I'll apologize and amend my statement.

Someone with a trauma like wartime PTSD will not be able to "step away from" that one activity. They will not get the choice to "choose to take the initiative to not engage with content that [they] dont [sic] want to engage with".

If there are fireworks at that friends-and-family-reunion BBQ, they don't get to participate anymore.

That's the problem here. You have straight-up said, "Well, because we like fireworks, we're going to use them, even though that guarantees you can't participate."

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Well, you are flat out wrong in your summary and assessment, so there's that.

Then I don't understand what you were trying to say. I apologize for misrepresenting your position, but I genuinely cannot see any other meaning from what was said. Given the high temperature of the thread, I would understand if the answer is simply no. But would you be willing to rephrase? I will accept what might otherwise be considered insultingly basic terms, because I genuinely don't get it and need to be walked through it.

 

[FrogReaver]

Okay. I'm game for that.

Awesome!

How often do you think safety tools are actually abused by someone acting in bad faith?

As I've said before in this thread, rarely.

Do you think the presence of safety tools has any effect on someone electing to begin participating in bad faith?

Possibly yes, but not necessarily.

Why is it that maximal DM latitude, which can also be horrendously abused (far worse than safety tools!) is acceptable, but safety tools (which are exceedingly rarely actually abused) are not acceptable?

Not sure what maximal DM latitude has to do with this. Are you suggesting the DM is intentional trying to cause anxiety attacks in their players? If so then that's far rarer than saftey tool abuses. If not then it really seems an irrelevant, tangential discussion that we've had 50x before and doesn't seem like it'll be any more productive this time or shed any light on this topic.